The big money, and thus the candidacies, go to hand-picked candidates.

The "powers that be" are busy making sure only "their kind" are elected.

Since our system requires massive amounts of money to get elected, those with massive amounts of money get to choose who gets to run for the most part.

Are the ones who swear absolute loyalty to Wall Street, the MIC, Israel, etc etc.

Gotta make sure those gravy trains keep rollin'...

So my guess is we'll be served up Clinton vs Bush for 2016.

Thin gruel for all of us, and democracy too.

Signed, sealed, and guaranteed to be delivered.

On edit: Although I will support and work for them if they run in my state's primary.

His whole "small donor" image was a facade.

When McCain was wishwashy on the bailout the big money knew who to pick. Obama, who sided with the banks, full stop.

It's like Sen. Warren said to the CNBC anchors about her new Glass-Steagall bill, your defeat is assured when you never try.

They don't like the candidate, they won't give them love. See: Dean, Howard.

for Complete Campaign Finance Reform! Publicy funded elections are the ONLY thing we should be willing to do! Until that is accomplished we should shut it all down! This would be the battle to regain control over our government. The 1st thing is to start presiding the word nationally, state and local! The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been spreading money and influence at all levels for the last 30 years
Next we need to bust up the big banks and media companies. Never again should we allow that much control over either the financial sector or the media!
If we are successful we will have our Democracy back, if not then we will always be the "Proles" from George Orwell's "1984!"

Sanders is an Independent in a time when people are not happy with either Party. So you spin the perception one way, but that is sure as hell not the only way is spins....

for her intelligence.

Bernie is a socialist who identifies in Congress as an independent affiliating with the Democratic caucus.

I think they are both fine public servants. I just don't think they have the backing or broad appeal to reach the top tier jobs in the federal executive branch.

People always say they are dissatisfied with both parties, until their guy/gal is up for reelection...then it's "Oh they're all bad, except for (fill in name of their rep)."

It's still early days, but I don't see that ticket as a winner, even though, as I said, they are both excellent politicians.

principle. Probably right but no one listens to. They both are great about whining but have not shown any leadership, IMO.

leadership means sucking up to big money. An unwillingness to do that leaves one powerless but to "whine" about the influence of big money.

Not shown any leadership? Bernie co-founded the Progressive Caucus, the largest membership organization within the Democratic Caucus. 71 members today. 'Not shown any leadership'? Good lord. Bernie also voted and spoke against your beloved Iraq Invasion, great leadership which should have been followed. Interesting that you put no stock in being correct on major issues and also find no issue with those whose 'errors' caused an illegal war and tens of thousands dead.
Elizabeth Warren of course is the key person in the conception and creation of the Consumer Protection Bureau, she was basically the first to call for it's creation and it got created and she won a seat in the Senate in the process.
It's easy to say 'they haven't shown any leadership' but hard to defend that statement against actual facts. Shall we compare Obama's 'leadership' in his quick dip in the US Senate Chambers? How many bills did he author and pass? Hundreds? What were the highlights of his fierce and unrelenting leadership in the Senate? Hmmmmm?

what your opinion of leadership is. I generally do that with elected officials according to their voting record. Iow, if they put their votes where their mouths are, they are 'leaders' in a government where Money decides who gets to lead and who doesn't.

I would love to see some examples of 'leadership' from your perspective.

Imo, however, both have shown remarkable leadership skills and a fearlessness in speaking the truth where others who are beholden to Big Corps for their positions, often either remain silent or end up talking one way and voting another.

...the main thing for a candidate to have is name recognition. While Senators Warren and Sanders may be known around here, they sure aren't for those who will be voting in the Iowa primaries or even in nearby New Hampshire...especially when compared to Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. To get that recognition they need to raise awareness and lots of money to buy overpriced TV time, setting up an effective campaign organization and spending virtually every waking moment in the early primary states for the 6 months prior to the first ballot being cast.

The people who have the final say in primaries are Democratic voters; more specifically Democratic voters in early primary states. Those states tend to be more conservative and thus also work against any liberal/progressive candidates to "break through". Then if those candidates do make it through the primaries they'll have a real tough time in the general.

Sanders, being an Independent, has never shown any inclination for either higher office or joining the Democratic party...so I see his chances as slim to nil. Senator Warren is still learning the ropes; this being her first elective office. She has no record on foreign policy and would be a weak candidate in '16. She may be a good VP pick but I can't see her as ready for prime time til at least '20...and, personally, I'd rather see her stay and grow in the Senate...

Since I pretty much do not listen to speeches of any kind, I was not aware of his speech at a Dem convention or whatever.
IMO Obama was carefully chosen, and the people who choose can also easily handle the name recognition thing.
In fact, a relatively obscure person who is not publicly for or against much of anything is likely easier to promote. The inconvenient YouTube moments have not had a chance to pile up.

He hadn't been in the Senate long enough to vote on controversial matters that the other side could use to attack him. About the only thing most people knew about his record was his vote against the Iraq War, which was a big positive. He was also squeaky clean in his personal life, besides the pot smoking in his youth. Republicans were forced to attack people associated with him. They really had nothing personal about him to go after.

He did vote Yes on all funding requests for war from Bush. His youth included according to him, snorting coke as much as he could afford. He had done almost nothing in the Senate, he started running for President the second he was sworn in.
The one thing you thought people 'knew' about his voting record is not even true.

...he spent the better part of two years building a solid organization (one of many that was his key to victory). I recall driving down I-88...the road from Chicago to Iowa in 2007 and seeing a lot of Obama bumper stickers next to the Iowa Hawkeye ones. He also invested heavily in other Midwest states that helped him build up a delegate lead over Hillary Clinton. Governor Dean had a similar strong finish in Iowa but, unfortunately, didn't have the money or organization to build upon (and the "Dean Scream" video didn't help either). Winning a nomination is an endurance race...one that President Obama excelled at.

The current system puts a lot of emphasis on the early states: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina...states that are definitely more conservative than California or Massachusetts and also works against a Warren. The bottom line is the nomination generally goes to the candidate who works the hardest for it and organization is still the key...

and that working hard for the nomination does not necessarily mean we get the best person for the job.
Wanting the job, being chosen for the job, and best person for the job are all different creatures.

...the ugly truth is it costs money...lots of it...to win almost any political office these days. But that's also part of the endurance process...to see how serious a candidate is. The definition of the "best person for the job" changes from person to person...and in the case of the Presidency, unless that candidate is running for re-election there's no real barometer to use as to how someone will perform. It's one thing to run for office, it's a whole other game actually winning and having to govern. Unfortunately people lose sight that while a candidate will pander to 20 or 30% of the electorate to get the nomination and only needs 50.1% to win the election, when they're in office they're supposed to serve 100% of the people. While I'd love to see a Warren run, she'd still have to deal with the same asshole rushpublicans President Obama does. That's why winning back the House and holding onto the Senate is as critical this year as whomever runs in 2016...

And capitalist power and military industrial complex power is a lot more powerful now than it was then. But sure I would be all for it. But it has been decades since the political class has allowed even a New Deal liberal to actually be in a position where they might conceivably win a major party nomination. I assume the party establishment and their allies in the media would pull out all stops to block any genuinely progressive. candidacy - much more so for two progressive who are actually inspiring the country to consider alternatives to unchallengeable global neoliberal capitalism. Eventually it may be possible to challenge the power structure. But it would be hard for me to imagine that it could happen by 2016.

Like Sanders and Warren to the W.H. (whiners? I call it telling the truth) things will exponentially get worse.

The main trouble that I see is getting them to run.

IMO, they appeal to more than just progressives. They appeal to most real average Americans. If we (and I would be honored to help)
educated the people about (let them see the bills, voting records and hear the public comments they have made), even those who are not familiar with these candidates (I wish) would agree with them and likely vote for them.

It would have to be a grassroots campaign because we would be fighting corporate America.

Electing these two would be a coup on TPTB and change America in the way the majority wants.

and do not show the proper deference that is expected of them. I'm not sure how it would work out - but yeah, I think it would be a good thing to have a candidate or candidates who seriously challenged established power. I would certainly enthusiastically support it. Who knows? It might really accomplish something.

....that's two obstacles. And then there's Citizens United and Koch and other spending (unlimited) on attack ads that stupid people would believe. Also, Wall St. controls the Fed and much of the gov't and they'd have NO part of either of these fine folks in the P and VP slots.

old man who never got double digit returns, much less won a State. Amazing what folks have rolling in their heads.

I'm sure he would support it.

That's kind of the point of the whole idea in the thread. Nominate candidates who boldly stand up for progressive policies.

Given Obama's inexperience when nominated, it always CMSU when someone points out how Warren is needed as a senator. Mighty choosy about who is needed in Congress.

Our Democracy is nearly dead. No more time to play games. We need leaders who think like these two.

at the very least.

Our democracy demands we do something or else we loose it. If we haven't already that is

who can respond to crisis with unwavering courage and vision, or kiss the future goodbye. Time has run out.

We do need several good choices.

Let's get busy. This is going to be a big job...

We elected Obama against some mighty big odds. To me that means we can do this too.

the powers that are have royally screwed the average american to the point that most of us have nothing to loose by taking this route

VAST amounts of money. Get 10 million people to donate $100 each and then they would have a chance. Of course the Media would be watching them for anything they can misinterpret and use to smear them too.

We need all the legislative help we can get.

-- Mal

we need these good senators where they are

btw obama is no warren

were in the Senate, I sure don't recall all these wails that they needed to remain in the Senate. Obama had just been sworn in when he started running. Chris Dodd, now a lobbyist, was also a Senator. He left the Senate to lobby. 'We need them there!!! Unless they want to lobby!'
Are you willing to state that no candidate considered should be from the Senate?

still need a dem potus but we need warren, grayson et al like them in the senate

We're going to have a hard enough time in 2016 after 8 years of having the WH without the Left's pipe dreams. Also, Warren never ran for office before barely winning her Senate seat. Sanders is already 71 years old. This applies to him and Biden too, the party will not nominate in 2016 a white guy in his mid 70s.

I think that Warren and Sanders are where they belong. I hope that they'll continue in the Senate for years to come.

First, I'm not sure when you say "we" who you are refererencing. DUers? The Democratic party? The nation? Obviously, DUers don't have the ability to elect anyone president by themselves. "We" would need the support of the rest of the Democratic party and from a lot of indepedent voters who float back and forth between supporting repub candidates and Democratic candidates.

Second, Sanders and Warren can't get the Democratic nomination and they can't win as a third party. They can't get the nomination because the Democratic party isn't going to nominate someone to head their ticket who does not identify themselves as a member of the Democratic party. And Warren isn't going to participate in a third party run against a Democratic nominee, because doing so would kill her chances of ever being part of the Democratic party ticket in the future. And even if they did run as a third party, the chances of them capturing enough electoral votes to win is zilch.

Third, Bernie's age will work against them. Its not fair, since he would basically be the same age as McCain was when he ran in 2012, But remember all the jokes about McCain's age? I believe that they did have a negative impact on his efforts to appeal to "swing" voters. In addition, while there is no comparison between Elizabeth Warren and Sarah Palin (really none at all), having an "old" presidential candidate focuses a lot of attention on the VP candidate (just as having a "young" presidential candidate focuses attention on the VP candidate. Obama played his cards correctly by picking an old hand like Biden. McCain screwed up by picking an inexperienced person like Palin (to say nothing of all of her other flaws). The repubs are likely to take a page out the Obama playbook and pick a young-ish presidential candidate and pair him with an older, more experienced VP candidate. The latter combination is likely to be more appealing to swing voters (assuming that the repubs don't pick truly extreme candidates, which they might well do.

Fourth, money. If Hillary runs, she will have the money and organization to swamp a run at the Democratic nomination by someone who doesn't identify himself as a Democrat. And if Sanders mounts a third party campaign, the best he could do against the Democratic nominee is prevent that nominee from capturing states that are needed for a Democratic victory. Obama won a decisive looking victory in 2012, but the fact is that he won several states quite narrowly.

Fifth, and finally, regional concentration. Its not necessarily fatal to a ticket, but it doesn't help to have a ticket that is not geographically diverse. Vermont and Massachusetts are viewed, rightly or wrongly, as states that are near locks for the Democrats no matter who is nominated. Reaching out to a different region of the country (Midwest, West, South) is probably essential for the Democrats.

despite what people here believe its the independents that win elections.
the hard core dems will vote dem
the hardcore rethugs wil vote rethug
thats close to a 50/50 split despite what we may wish
so that leaves independents
bernie is a socialist. he admits it.
that will turn off enough independents to prevent him ever winning. it may fly in vermont but in a swing state? no way in hell
elizabeth warren on the other hand may be electable
maybe not in 2016 but in 2020
but she would make a great veep in 2016

It is interesting that you assume Independents would not support an Independent. You assume voters without Party affiliation are all right wing but you can not support that assertion with any facts.
Here is one of the models for Independent politicians in the past, Wayne Morse of Oregon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Morse

I'm just not sure you know that 'independent' does not mean 'to the right of the Republicans'.

Sometimes Independents are to the right, sometimes to the left, sometimes centrist.

Senator Morse, certainly on the left, was elected twice as a Republican, became an Independent then joined the Democratic party where he was also elected twice. Morse did run for president as a Democrat.

While Senator Sanders has caucused with the Democrats his entire career he has never been a Democrat and has said in the past he will never run as one. Why people keep beating this dead horse is beyond me. Bernie Sanders is a wonderful man, a progressive and a leader of progressives but is not nor ever has been a Democrat. Wishful thinking aside, he's not running for the nomination in 2016 or anytime.

are a block with common goals on issues.

They're not.

I was an independent for most of my voting life; I only registered "D" to protest the 2000 selection. Since then, I've learned that it didn't do me any good to be part of a party, or to work and vote in primaries; the same kind of candidates get elected every time regardless.

As an independent, and as an independent-minded Democrat, I would vote for Bernie Sanders in a heartbeat.

"Independent" is supposed to mean that one makes an independent decision about issues and candidates outside of party influence. I do that anyway, regardless of party membership.

The stumbling block to electing candidates that would serve the 99% is that those at the gate, those that have the $$ and influence to determine who will be on the ballot in the general election, will make sure that they won't.

And of all of them, I think right now a large majority might not be convinced.

Seems obvious.

I also think Sanders, as wonderful as he is, would never win 270 Electoral votes. He'd be seen by much of he electorate as too old, too socialist and too Jewish to be president. I hate to say it, but it's true.

Spirited primary battles are fun, and the more candidates, the merrier. Let the best man (or woman) win.

These are probably the main reasons the Democratic leadership would not select them.

people? Your reframe was not worth my time to reply ...back to my coffee.

that it cannot be done.

and its us who can make something like this happen. If we really want it that is. I know I do.

... as everyone else? What magical skills or abilities do they have that would make the actual government function differently if they were president?

Americans are, on average, a lot further right than Europeans, despite the popularity of the comforting lie to the contrary in the DU echo chamber.

...back into the country to run the CIA, Put all CEOs in Gitmo, defund the DoD and give all the funds to single payer, solve every racial problem existed in America....


In 6 months


The professional left will call them sell outs


Who the hell wants that kinda job!?!?!

On DU, there's been very little of the pie-in-the-sky perfectionism that you insinuate. When people have said or implied that Obama sold out, it's been because of his failure to live up to his own standards.

Let's take health care. Yes, DUers tend to favor single payer, and it's legitimate to urge Obama to go that route -- but most of Obama's critics here, even if they disagree with his policies, recognize that he didn't endorse single payer, so they don't call him a sellout on that basis. He did, however, say that he would insist on a robust public option. He then sold out on even that feeble protection against the for-profit health insurance industry. As a result, reasonable progressives can differ about Obamacare. As a health insurance reform bill, it instituted certain useful improvements, but it strengthened the role of the for-profit carriers.

It's just attacking a straw man to say that we insist on our leaders solving every problem within six months. Between such unrealistic perfectionism, on one hand, and blind "Obamabot" praise, on the other, there is actually a middle ground of supporting Obama against the right wing while still holding his feet to the fire when he sells out progressive approaches.

Obama's critics on the left started with his suggested cabinet appointments over a month before he was inaugurated.

He hadn't had a chance to enact any policies yet and wouldn't have that chance for another month and already he was being attacked.

Yes, many of us criticized the appointments of Geithner and the like. We thought that Obama's decisions in the pre-Inauguration period portended an administration whose policies would be too corporate-friendly. That prediction turned out to be completely correct.

If you're saying that it's somehow unfair to criticize a President-Elect for appointments, it's fair to ask whether you applied that standard to Bush. If DU had started before January 20, 2001, I'm sure that plenty of people would have been criticizing the appointments of Rumsfeld and so on, without waiting to see actual policies.

More generally, we can take it as given that anyone who could actually get elected will face criticism from the right and from the left. There are some people to the left of Bernie Sanders and others to the right of Jim DeMint. I don't buy the thesis that the prospect of such criticism is a major factor as politicians decide whether to run for office.

...people have so little grace on so many things

They started when he picked Rick Warren to give the inauguration prayer.

Can't imagine why they might have been mad about that.

#1 - Warren wasn't named to the inauguration until January. The folks mad about cabinet appointments were already mad about them since late November/early December.

#2 - You are talking about two mostly separate groups of people, one group upset about something tangible and understandable, and one group upset about something completely ridiculous. It's understandable that the LGBT community was upset at a homophobic preacher giving the invocation at the inauguration. It's not understandable to already be upset at a President for choices of his cabinet who are not bigoted two months before taking office.

The actual policies Obama rolled out as president(and I'm not talking about getting things through Congress where some compromise usually does happen)proved that a president with a centrist cabinet and an left-hating Chief of Staff(I'd still like to know what the hell the Left ever did to Rahm) won't be all that progressive, because the president won't be hearing any advice other than "you can't change THIS" "you can't change THAT" and "you can only just barely change that other stuff".

Obama OWED it to his voters to have a progressive cabinet. No good came of filling the admin with corporate toadies(with the sole exception of Hilda Solis).

And his chief of staff should've been somebody like Bobby Rush, not Rahm.

change the general bent of the President.

has never sought the office. Bernie's smart, and he knows he's beloved by some because he can talk a good game, and say "well, I tried". Doing the job, however, would be quite different. I can hear it now, "sigh, another pretty speech from Bernie, when's he gonna stop talking & get something done, I hate him, who can we replace him with"?

It's always puzzled me why people think Bernie would be more effective in the WH than he is in the Senate. Why can't he convince his colleagues to sign on to his agenda, and what would change if he's elected President? And that goes for Elizabeth as well.

They are doing the same thing again.

Guess who will be called Warrenbots who think Warren can do no wrong - because we support the Democratic President.

Next, are you going to change the makeup of Congress?

Actually, it might be interesting to leave the Congressional makeup as it is (unless the Dems manage to lose the Senate in 2014), so that maybe it will finally come clear to some people how much a friendly or hostile Congress impacts a President's agenda.

Will President Sanders get Single-Payer Healthcare passed with Congress as-is? How will he manage it?

The bullshit about purchased elections, and bought off candidates are well worn excuses by the malcontents because they can't get actual Democrats to get behind their selected nominees. We know who we want to represent us, and perhaps you will someday accept that there's no grand conspiracy, but your liberal'er than thou alternatives just suck?

there is no way the DNC would sponsor him. Elizabeth could but she'd have to knock Hillary Clinton out of the ball park first.

Bernie Sanders would likely lose 48 states and Warren would lose at least 40.

It isn't that they wouldn't be good president and vice president material.

It is that they couldn't crack 45% nationally. And that's being generous.

because the ring up gives marching orders and they follow that beat least by punishment or circumstance get flung into steerage with the rest of us.

They also are convinced (for good reason) that there are no possible consequences for their corporate support, the "small people" will ALWAYS get in line.

They are correct, we "small people" are desperate cowards trying to lose as little as possible, trying to convince ourselves that if we are patient, smart, and loyal to our masters that they will leave us with something.

So, we are left with only a pool of the bottom 80% who don't have the resources to dump a billion or two into a race and anyone that can command a camera will push the party insider line.

Of course we know that the Democratic party offers them SOMETHING (or somethings) that cannot be had from the TeaPubliKlans and at this point I have to suggest these things be held hostage until power is shared and I don't give a shit what it is but rest assured it isn't a piece of the pie for working class folks and it isn't environmental stewardship, it isn't peace, and it sure as hell isn't broad civil liberties.

The ultimate power over a thing is the ability to destroy it wielded by the will to do so and the reason that this attitude is required is common sense-loyal beggars have no bargaining position. We have nothing they want but votes and elbow grease

Riding the Presidential Unicorn up Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day.

would be screaming from the sidewalk:

"Hey! Where's the goddamned sparkles?!?"

From a different time, and a wholly different board:

It has become very clear to me that the Establishment Republicans fear NEWT the same as they feared Palin, Trump, Cain, Bachmann, Paul and others. They do not want anybody to interefere with Business as Usual in DC. We now have a One Party System made up of two factions called Establishment Republcans and Establishment Democrats. Both the estabalishment parties cater to their base and to their fringes, but at the end of the day, there is very little difference between the Dems and Repubs in power and their rhetoric is interchangeable. Both parties put up a Dog and Pony Show Fight which is Made For TV audiences and this Dog and Pony Show Fight is no more real or serious than is TV Wrestling. It is all hype and show and ZERO substance. The same holds true for the supposed Rival TV Networks. Fox likes to call themselves the voice of the conservatives when, in fact, FOX is nothing but the Mouthpiece for the Establsihment Republican Party. When Obama bashes Fox News, it is no more serious than when TV wrestlers trash their opponents when the cameras are running. It is to gain support and to make the public believe that we have real competition in political racesd, when in fact, we do not. The Republicans campaign to Abolish or Repeal Democrat policies, regulations and legislation and programs, but when they are elected on this promise, they do not change anything and in fact, they add their own legislation, agencies, programs and regulations and it is business as usual. Our current Political System which consists of a One Big Government/Socialist Party made up of Establsihment Democrats and Establishment Republicans is totally Fascistic, which means they will not allow any opposition or outsiders to attend. That is why FOX News is pulling out all the Neo Con mouthpieces such as Ann Coulter to trash and bash Gingrich because the Fix is In for Romney, who is establishment Republicanism. That is all there is to the story.

us from electing a black president, there will come a time when they can't stop us from electing a president who will stand with the 99%.